Among the numerous decisions that please Israel, the report also said the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince offered the PA despot Abbas a direct payment, and gave him two months to accept the conditions.
By Arutz Sheva Staff
A November meeting between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman included a discussion of a peace plan largely favoring Israel, The New York Times reported.
According to the Times’ report, bin Salman’s plan offers the PA noncontiguous parts of Judea and Samaria, with limited sovereignty and without eastern Jerusalem as its capital city. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, for the most part, would not be destroyed or moved.
In addition, Palestinian Authority Arabs would not have the “right of return” to Israel.
- UK Report: Saudi Arabia willing to abandon PA quagmire in favor of Israel intel sharing
- Abbas in Saudi Arabia irks King on Hamas weapons, violence and Iranian ties
- REPORT: Saudi Arabia ends its financial support to Abbas and the Palestinians
The reports also said bin Salman had offered Abbas a direct payment and given Abbas two months to accept the conditions.
Channel 10 reported last month that Saudi Arabia told PA President Mahmoud Abbas to either accept an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal currently being advanced by the Trump administration or be forced from his position. Abbas hotly denied the remarks and a close confidant told the Times of Israel that “The Channel 10 report is fabricated, false and untrue.”
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, Abbas’ spokesman, said the report was “fake news.” It “does not exist,” he emphasized.
White House spokesperson Joshua Raffel said the report “is not reflective of the current state of the plan we are working on or the conversations we have had with regional players.”
Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US Prince Khalid bin Salman in an email stated that the Saudi “kingdom remains committed to a settlement based on the Arab peace initiative of 2002, including East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. To suggest otherwise is false.”
View original Arutz Sheva publication at: